i just maxed out my scale :(

[Ksyder]

If you're claiming that the laws of physics don't apply to the human body , go ahead. The calorie count on food is accurate enough to use when attemping to lose weight in a consistent manner.

It's not so much that the laws of physiscs don't apply as much as the satiety signals between protein vs. carbs. People who do a low carb diet properly spontaneously eat less calories because of the reduced amount of carbohydrate in the diet. The difference is that the protein is very satiating, so it will be hard to overeat, say, chicken breast, and no one would want to, and also on a proper low carb diet you have much less choices in what to eat.

So, yes, you are still observing the laws of physics, but you are also observing the laws of fat regulation, and by keeping insulin stable and not spiking blood glucose, there will be no reason to surge a large amount of insulin and cause fat to be stored. In fact, the opposite will be true, and in response to the protein and lower calories meals, glucagon will cause fat to be released from cells.

As I said before its not the only way to do it but it's the only the way that I've had success, for example. If you allow yourself to eat crap foods it tends to stall weight loss, or may never occur. This issue is the exact issue that Gary Taubes is trying to get the medical research community to look at.

 

[Apple Of Sodom]

It's not so much that the laws of physiscs don't apply as much as the satiety signals between protein vs. carbs. People who do a low carb diet properly spontaneously eat less calories because of the reduced amount of carbohydrate in the diet. The difference is that the protein is very satiating, so it will be hard to overeat, say, chicken breast, and no one would want to, and also on a proper low carb diet you have much less choices in what to eat.

So, yes, you are still observing the laws of physics, but you are also observing the laws of fat regulation, and by keeping insulin stable and not spiking blood glucose, there will be no reason to surge a large amount of insulin and cause fat to be stored. In fact, the opposite will be true, and in response to the protein and lower calories meals, glucagon will cause fat to be released from cells.

As I said before its not the only way to do it but it's the only the way that I've had success, for example. If you allow yourself to eat crap foods it tends to stall weight loss, or may never occur. This issue is the exact issue that Gary Taubes is trying to get the medical research community to look at.

Exactly. It is a bit more complex than people want to make it out to be. There are complex systems in the body. Enzymes, hormones, etc. There is such a thing as a "skinny fat person." These are the people who are normal weight but have no muscle mass. They are all around us. People don't realize that they can put their body into starvation mode where the body hoards fat and burns muscle (yeah, Weight Watchers, I'm looking at you!)

I'm with you. Regulate insulin. Base every meal around protein. Limiting caloric intake alone isn't enough...although it is a part that comes naturally when you are filling up on vegetables and protein. Our bodies were not meant to consume calorie dense food. I can eat 200 calorie twinkies all day long To eat 200 calories worth of broccoli would probably make my stomach explode (figuratively, of course.) During the Ideal Protein diet I had to eat 2 cups of select vegetables with lunch and dinner. At first it was no problem. As my stomach began to shrink I had a hell of a time downing two cups of vegetables as that turns out to be a shit ton of food...

 

[Ksyder]

Apple of Sodom, I agree with your sentiments whole-heartedly.

I stopped eating grains last year after realizing I have a debilitating gluten intolerance. I don't miss them at all as they make me sick. On the other hand, if I eat lots of dense protein, veggies, some starch once in a while, and healthy fats from things like grass-fed butter, coconut oil, almond butter very occasionally, I feel good all the time and don't gain weight at all unless I'm eating large amounts of sugars or junk food, which might happen on the holidays for example.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

You're trying too hard to sound intelligent, and it isn't working.

ok fatty.

 

[nageov3t]

Apple of Sodom, I agree with your sentiments whole-heartedly.

I stopped eating grains last year after realizing I have a debilitating gluten intolerance. I don't miss them at all as they make me sick. On the other hand, if I eat lots of dense protein, veggies, some starch once in a while, and healthy fats from things like grass-fed butter, coconut oil, almond butter very occasionally, I feel good all the time and don't gain weight at all unless I'm eating large amounts of sugars or junk food, which might happen on the holidays for example.

do you wonder if maybe the bolded quote is the important part and that your experience might not be the same for someone without a gluten allergy?

 

[IceBergSLiM]

If you're claiming that the laws of physics don't apply to the human body , go ahead. The calorie count on food is accurate enough to use when attemping to lose weight in a consistent manner.

I'm not claiming physics doesn't apply. I'm claiming counting calories isn't the final solution because your oven and my oven don't burn at the same temperature. In the same way some people are insulin resistant and some people are insulin sensitive. This is going to drastically change results of a 500 calorie per day deficit candy bar diet versus a 500 calorie per day deficit beef and broccoli diet.

 

[Ksyder]

do you wonder if maybe the bolded quote is the important part and that your experience might not be the same for someone without a gluten allergy?

Definitely, someone who can eat wheat can probably lose weight just fine without cutting it out. However, in a very low carb diet you would still have to lose the grain. Its not the only way to lose weight, but can be easier due to its effects on hunger. If you are 375lbs. you probably aren't among the genetically gifted ones who can get away with alot of carbs in the diet.

 

[ShawnD1]

I'm not claiming physics doesn't apply. I'm claiming counting calories isn't the final solution because your oven and my oven don't burn at the same temperature. In the same way some people are insulin resistant and some people are insulin sensitive. This is going to drastically change results of a 500 calorie per day deficit candy bar diet versus a 500 calorie per day deficit beef and broccoli diet.

tru dat. Apparently it's not just me, but I find that carbohydrates of any kind often cause a sharp blood sugar increase followed by a sharp drop. I don't really get hungry, so the drop just makes me feel tired. Everyone else gets hungry and makes more food and the cycle repeats every couple hours. By the end of the day, it's easy to eat 3000 calories just because blood sugar was crashing out every 3 hours.

If I eat meat and dairy, I stay energized for quite a while. It takes a really long time to digest eggs and butter.

 

[bobdole369]

I would wager that most overweight people are just a case of inactivity and poor eating habits.

Precisely. For me I was fresh out of the US navy, having gotten a gen discharge for a medical reason at the 9 month mark - I was 18, 161 lbs, not quite built, but lean and strong. I moved to America's Wang and got a job at a call center for home computer tech support. 13 hour days 3.5 days a week. I did that job for 5 years. Do you think I had a single "healthy" meal there? And while I certainly could have exercised I was young dumb and immersed in nerd paradise. Nobody ever went to the gym, come on it was a nerdfest in that place. All the non-stop sitting and snacking and call taking will take its toll and I was 250 by the end of the first year. Not to mention all the Doom, Unreal Tournament, Half-Life, Everquest, AC, UO, etc. I hovered there for the next 8, and it wasn't until I quit smoking recently that i really ballooned again.

 

[NikolaeVarius]

I'm not claiming physics doesn't apply. I'm claiming counting calories isn't the final solution because your oven and my oven don't burn at the same temperature. In the same way some people are insulin resistant and some people are insulin sensitive. This is going to drastically change results of a 500 calorie per day deficit candy bar diet versus a 500 calorie per day deficit beef and broccoli diet.

But you can't claim special cases when I'm arguing that simple calorie reduction will solve 99% of weight related problems. No one is getting fat while eating 1500 calories a day and no one is staying skinny while eating 7000 calories a day and not spending the next 12 hours running up a mountain.

No matter what kind of weird problem you have, the simple fact of the matter is that the body cannot get fat off of what it doesn't have. When you weigh 375 pounds, I will guarantee you aren't eating three of those pre measured meal things a day. Cut out calories and figure out how many calories you're consuming, and undercut that until it's well below your basal metabolic rate, which will already extremely high because it takes energy in order to upkeep that much fat on you, and you WILL shed pounds.

Add some exercise, and you won't become some skinny fat dude

 

[Pantlegz]

But you can't claim special cases when I'm arguing that simple calorie reduction will solve 99% of weight related problems. No one is getting fat while eating 1500 calories a day and no one is staying skinny while eating 7000 calories a day and not spending the next 12 hours running up a mountain.

No matter what kind of weird problem you have, the simple fact of the matter is that the body cannot get fat off of what it doesn't have. When you weigh 375 pounds, I will guarantee you aren't eating three of those pre measured meal things a day. Cut out calories and figure out how many calories you're consuming, and undercut that until it's well below your basal metabolic rate, which will already extremely high because it takes energy in order to upkeep that much fat on you, and you WILL shed pounds.

Add some exercise, and you won't become some skinny fat dude

It's not that reducing calories wont cause everyone to lose weight but different people need more/less reduction to see the same results. There are also other factors involved that dictate weight loss, insulin/blood glucose being the biggest factor in the research I've done. Exercise really doesn't do that much when you're eating 1000+ excess calories.

 

[GodlessAstronomer]

I don't think there is any study out there that I've seen that shows that the calorie difference resulting from minute differences in how the body views and process certain forms of carbohydrates, proteins and such makes a large enough difference to noticeably impact weight loss in anyone attempting to lose weight. Can in be that in every case 100% of participants failed to comply with the the experiment requirements or something else?

If you're claiming that the laws of physics don't apply to the human body , go ahead. The calorie count on food is accurate enough to use when attemping to lose weight in a consistent manner.

You should really read a book titled Good Calories Bad Calories by Gary Taubes. He presents an extremely strong case for the hypothesis that fat accumulation is regulated by hormone and insulin levels and not by calorie deficit. His argument is backed by a wall of references and its pretty convincing. I'm not 100% sold because it's hard not to be skeptical of something that goes so far against conventional wisdom, but I have not yet found a satisfying rebuttal to his argument.

 

[Pantlegz]

You should really read a book titled Good Calories Bad Calories by Gary Taubes. He presents an extremely strong case for the hypothesis that fat accumulation is regulated by hormone and insulin levels and not by calorie deficit. His argument is backed by a wall of references and its pretty convincing. I'm not 100% sold because it's hard not to be skeptical of something that goes so far against conventional wisdom, but I have not yet found a satisfying rebuttal to his argument.

There isn't much data agaist this, when your insulin levels are up the body thinks it has plenty of energy and stops burning/starts storing fat. the longer it takes for the insulin to level off the longer fat will not be burnt. it's slightly more technical than that, but without going into way more detail than I feel like putting in a forum post.

 

[ShawnD1]

You should really read a book titled Good Calories Bad Calories by Gary Taubes. He presents an extremely strong case for the hypothesis that fat accumulation is regulated by hormone and insulin levels and not by calorie deficit. His argument is backed by a wall of references and its pretty convincing. I'm not 100% sold because it's hard not to be skeptical of something that goes so far against conventional wisdom, but I have not yet found a satisfying rebuttal to his argument.

I guess that makes sense. As the old "you are what you eat" expression says, things you eat affect your body, even hormones. Foods with really high glycemic index (potatoes, french fries, potato chips) cause the body to release a shitload of insulin just to keep blood sugar in check, but foods with very low glycemic index do not. Simple differences like that can affect your mood, metabolism, how hungry you feel, how often you feel hungry, and how much food you think you should eat when you get hungry.

A low calorie diet won't last very long if you feel hungry the entire time you are on this diet. You'll eventually give it up, go back to eating like a pig, and you'll gain all of the weight that you lost while dieting.

Eating fewer calories won't help if the new diet causes your metabolism to slow down. Example: I feel the need to sleep after eating certain foods. While sleeping, the body doesn't consume as many calories as it would if I were awake and doing something.

It varies from person to person. You should know what kinds of foods make you tired or energized or hungry in a couple hours.

 

[melchoir]

OP, calculate calories in everything you eat. Measure your portions.
Eat 2200 calories or less per day. Eat 130g of protein or more each day.

Honestly, if you hit both of those numbers you won't really need to pay much attention to carbs or fat macros because you won't be able to get them too out of whack with the other two "limits" being set. So eat/drink whatever you want, as long as it keeps you within those numbers.

Follow this plan and with no exercise you WILL lose weight period. Adding exercise will just hasten the losses.


Your metabolism won't "slow down" unless you maintain a major deficit for an extended period of 6+ months. There's no such thing as "starvation mode". It really is as simple as calories in, calories out. For your height/weight, 2200c/day will lose you close to 2lbs/wk with no added exercise.

 

[Chaotic42]

ok so im gonna try to cut out the sugar drinks altogether, and maybe half my food and see how that goes

Buy the Sugar Busters book. Read it, then read it again. It's hard to get healthy. It took my doctor telling me at 28 that I wouldn't make it to 30. Don't be me.

 

[busydude]

Chaotic, how are you doing now?

 

[Ben90]

Fat people are awesome. It makes us sexy beasts even more rare and envied!

 

[tynopik]

OP, calculate calories in everything you eat. Measure your portions.

don't count calories, cut calories!

the exact amount doesn't really matter, just eat half as much and you're guaranteed to lose weight

just fix what you regularly would for breakfast/lunch/dinner/brunch/afternoon snack/midnight snack, but cut it in half and eat the other half the next day

 

[Chaotic42]

Chaotic, how are you doing now?

Good. My blood pressure is under control, it's down to the 130/90ish range from 175/135. My blood sugar is under control, I've lost weight, I feel so much better and have more energy, my sinus problems are gone, I no longer have headaches most days, I no longer throw up most days. I'm doing a 10K on Saturday.

All in all I can't complain. The only thing is that it is a life change. It's a complete rebirth of the way you look at health. Completely different.